Missouri Court of Appeals Affirms Jury Verdict for Plaintiff Despite Concerns Regarding Expert Opinions
ABSTRACT: The Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, affirmed a trial court's judgment of $5 Million in compensatory damages in favor of Debbie Pyzyk in a medical malpractice case stemming from the death of her daughter, K.P. Though the court agreed with defendants' argument that plaintiff's expert’s cause of death opinion was unreliable and should not have been admitted, the court held the error did not materially affect the outcome, as other substantial evidence at trial supported the opinion and verdict. The defense also raised instructional issues and an argument the trial court should not have allowed the plaintiff to submit a claim for aggravating circumstances damages, which the jury ultimately declined to award.
Dr. Gordon Robinson is a psychiatrist who began treating K.P. on June 25, 2013 and continued treating her until her March 16, 2016 death. K.P. was admitted to Harris House Treatment and Recovery Center for inpatient treatment for alcohol dependence and Adderall abuse. K.P. suffered from various health conditions, including alcohol dependence, ADHD, amphetamine abuse, generalized anxiety disorder, bulimia nervosa, and anorexia nervosa. While treating K.P. at Harris House, Dr. Robinson prescribed her Vyvanse, an amphetamine. K.P was abusing the Vyvanse and taking more than the prescribed amount. One evening, K.P. and her mother got into an argument about paying for a Vyvanse prescription. About fifteen minutes after the argument ended, K.P. was found unresponsive in her bedroom. She was taken to the hospital and declared brain dead a few days later. The St. Louis County Medical Examiner’s Office determined K.P.’s cause of death was an “intraventricular hemorrhage secondary to acute Lisdexamfetamine toxicity” (the generic name for Vyvanse), which was also identified on the death certificate. K.P.'s mother filed a wrongful death lawsuit alleging that Dr. Robinson’s negligence caused K.P.’s death. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found in favor of plaintiff and awarded $5 Million in compensatory damages, which the trial court reduced to $801,061 pursuant to the medical malpractice liability limitations in Section 538.210. The jury declined to award aggravating circumstances damages.
Defendants Gateway Psychiatric Group and Dr. Gordon Robinson raised four separate issues on appeal: (1) that the trial court improperly included conflicting theories of negligence in the verdict directing instruction; (2) the expert testimony about K.P.'s cause of death did not comply with legal standards; (3) the death certificate was admitted into evidence without proper foundation; and (4) aggravating circumstances damages were incorrectly allowed as there was no evidence of intentional wrongdoing.
Appellants argued that the trial court erred by including both the ultimate fact and additional evidentiary details in the jury verdict director. They argued that the sole ultimate fact for the jury's consideration should have been whether Dr. Robinson unreasonably prescribed Vyvanse to K.P., while the remaining four disjunctive theories of negligence—prescribing Vyvanse above the recommended dose, failing to weigh risks, not monitoring for side effects, and not discontinuing the medication—were improper evidentiary details. Plaintiff argued that these additional disjunctives represented different theories of negligence, not just evidentiary details, all of which were separate ultimate facts for the jury to consider. The court noted Appellants failed to object to the submission of the verdict director instruction at the instruction conference and instead only proposed an alternative instruction, which was denied. Because they failed to object to the submission, Appellants failed to preserve any claim of error. Nevertheless, the court exercised its discretion to conduct a plain error review and determined that all five disjunctives were proper ultimate facts and denied the Appellants' claim of error, concluding that no manifest injustice occurred.
On their second point on appeal, Appellants argued plaintiff’s expert’s cause of death opinion lacked sufficient factual support, was unreliable, and should not have been admitted. They claimed the expert failed to consider all relevant facts and did not provide physical evidence linking Vyvanse to K.P.’s death. The court cited an "obvious problem" with the expert’s opinion, in that there was no evidence presented of the physical effects of Vyvanse on K.P.’s cardiovascular system, the expert failed to identify all the scientifically plausible causes of death, and the expert ignored uncontested evidence of K.P.’s various comorbid conditions. However, the court found the opinion was supported by substantial other evidence, to which defendants failed to object, including the death certificate, medical examiner’s report, medical records, family testimony, medical literature, and warnings from Vyvanse’s FDA packaging materials. The court concluded that even if the expert’s differential diagnosis methodology was deficient and his opinion unreliable, the overall evidence was sufficient to uphold the judgment, as the error did not materially affect the outcome. Thus, the court denied Appellants' challenge to the expert’s cause of death opinion testimony.
On defendants' third point on appeal, the court found that the trial court acted within its discretion by admitting K.P.'s death certificate into evidence, as it is considered prima facie evidence of the facts it states, including the cause of death. Additionally, the long-form investigative report from the St. Louis County Medical Examiner’s Office, which included the death certificate's information and more details, was also admitted without objection. Since the death certificate’s information was cumulative of other evidence that was admitted without objection, Appellants could not demonstrate that its admission caused them any prejudice.
As mentioned above, the jury awarded plaintiff $5 Million in compensatory damages but chose not to award any damages for aggravating circumstances. In their fourth point on appeal, Appellants argued that the consideration of aggravating circumstances might have tainted the jury’s decision on the amount of compensatory damages awarded. The court did not reject the argument outright, or indicate that the improper submission of a claim for aggravating circumstances damages could not constitute reversible error in a case such as this where the jury awarded only compensatory damages. However, the court found the argument lacked specific factual or legal support and was therefore speculative and noted that the trial court reduced the compensatory damages to $801,061 due to the medical malpractice liability limitations in Section 538.210. Considering the lack of concrete evidence of prejudice, the court found the issue of aggravating circumstances damages moot. The defense does not appear to have cited specific evidence and argument in the record submitted in support of the aggravating circumstances claim or argued that the improper admission of this claim tainted the jury such that it believed compensatory damages were a foregone conclusion and that its only real decision was whether to also award aggravating circumstances damages. This appears to have been information the court was looking for to fully analyze the issue but failed to find any in the record on appeal.
This opinion highlights the trial court's broad discretion regarding the admission of expert opinions at trial. It also further underscores the importance of proper objections during trial to preserve claims of error for appeal. Though the court ultimately considered the issue moot, this case also shows how important it is for trial courts to utilize the appropriate standard for submissiblity of aggravating circumstances damages claims and the potential impact that error in allowing a jury to consider such a claim can have on the entire case from a defense perspective.related services
About Healthcare Law Blog
Baker Sterchi's Healthcare Law Blog examines issues of interest to healthcare providers in emergency departments, hospitals, private practice, ambulatory surgery centers, pharmacies, urgent care centers, EMS, long term care facilities, home health care and more. Learn more about our Healthcare Law practice.
Subscribe via email
Subscribe to rss feeds
RSS FeedsABOUT baker sterchi blogs
Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC (Baker Sterchi) publishes this website as a service to our clients, colleagues and others, for informational purposes only. These materials are not intended to create an attorney-client relationship, and are not a substitute for sound legal advice. You should not base any action or lack of action on any information included in our website, without first seeking appropriate legal or other professional advice. If you contact us through our website or via email, no attorney-client relationship is created, and no confidential information should be transmitted. Communication with Baker Sterchi by e-mail or other transmissions over the Internet may not be secure, and you should not send confidential electronic messages that are not adequately encrypted.
The hiring of an attorney is an important decision, which should not be based solely on information appearing on our website. To the extent our website has provided links to other Internet resources, those links are not under our control, and we are not responsible for their content. We do our best to provide you current, accurate information; however, we cannot guarantee that this information is the most current, correct or complete. In addition, you should not take this information as a promise or indication of future results.
Disclaimer
The Healthcare Law Blog is made available by Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. Your use of this blog site alone creates no attorney client relationship between you and the firm.
Confidential information
Do not include confidential information in comments or other feedback or messages related to the Healthcare Law Blog, as these are neither confidential nor secure methods of communicating with attorneys. The Healthcare Law Blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.